Will they teach their journalists how to take shallow depth-of-field shots and long telephoto shots with their iPhones? Probably not, since you can't.
Given the 'yes and' style of derivative news reporting commonplace today, the Sun-Times might be more effective firing the writers, keeping the photographers, and teaching them actual journalism.
Photojournalism has never been about depth-of-field shots nor long telephoto shots. Photojournalism has always been primarily wide, deep depth of field, and more about lighting and composition than anything else.
Shooting "real" photojournalism with an iPhone is more than doable. Hell, the iPhone's field of view is a 28mm equivalent, which is perfect for photojournalism.
I don't disagree with the overall point about the failure of photojournalism, but photojournalism has never been about the capabilities of the camera.
but photojournalism has never been about the capabilities of the camera
Fast frame rate. Very bright lens (e.g. f1.4). Large, high-sensitivity sensor.
It is very much about the capabilities of the camera, because the truth is that lesser cameras miss most shots, especially in a moving situation where you get a momentary window of opportunity. The iPhone camera may get there eventually, but in that situation right now the failure rate to get a shot is going to be incredibly high (obviously a chance is better than none -- the camera you have in your hand is better than the one at home and all -- but we're comparing to ready to go photojournalists).
We shall see how this decision plays out, but personally I think it is a horrible choice because it removes one of the few remaining differentiators between old media and the citizen news, which is that generally in the former you could find great, unique pictures by professionals who know what they're doing.
You're right on target about the iPhone's unsuitability for photojournalism. There's the horrendous shutter lag, inability to control aperture/sensitivity/shutter speed to any meaningful degree--I can make all these adjustments using dedicated controls on my D3 without taking my eye out of the viewfinder. A big storage buffer, fast frame rate, and removable, redundant storage modules and replaceable batteries also remain essential. Oh, and interfacing with lighting systems, and of course proper lenses.
In a dynamic/dangerous situation, you need to get on the viewfinder and crank away on continuous-high shutter, and you'll take 200x the photos of even an ambitious iPhone user. Now think that out of 1,000 frames, maybe 2 will be head-and-shoulders above the rest... these are probably frames that the iPhone user had a vanishingly small opportunity to capture at all.
It would make for an interesting (and almost certainly viral) test to concoct artificial scenarios of a "newsworthy" event, having participants armed with each type of capture device. Instructing them that something important is going to happen in a few moments (already giving them more information than they would usually have) and then having a staged shoot out go through the scene, or a pretend robbery, etc.
And my comment wasn't about photojournalism. Thinking journalists can become photojournalists by telling them to snap pictures (with their phone or with professional glass) is even more ridiculous than the Sun-Times is being.
Don't conflate News Photography with Photojournalism. The second is a subset of the first. News Photography is a field that requires greater diversity than 'being there at f/8 (in daylight, with a fast lens and a ready camera)'.
There are sports photographers, portrait photographers, close subject photographers, artistic photographers and, yes, photographers who need to be on the scene at breaking events, where a wide shot and being close are key.
I agree with everything you said, but it doesn't negate anything I said.
The announcement said they fired all of their photographic staff.
Which combined with your comment leads me to wonder about their sports section. Taking sports photography is very definitely about the capabilities of the camera and even more importantly the lens. An iPhone is not going to do very well for sports photography.
> An iPhone is not going to do very well for sports photography
Though it would be amusing to see the attempts... ><
[Seriously though, it sounds like they're simply going to use freelancers for photos from now on, many of whom will presumably have all the fancy kit you need for sports etc...]
Take someone with a DSLR on their hip and someone with an iPhone in their pocket and see who can get the shots you want. Subjects don't stand still and they won't wait for you to be ready.
It's hard to know which side you're arguing for. The iPhone is likely faster, there are a plethora of apps that burst shoot, it can switch to video in a moment and it's faster to start taking photos. By the time the SLR has been set to P mode and auto iso etc e iPhone would have already shot the photos and uploaded them to the server.
The wifi/cell part of the photo is not to be ignored, GPS stamped images uploaded in seconds. The SLR can't compete yet. In a year or two when wifi is prevalent on SLR cameras, maybe, but for the moment is speed counts the iPhone will win for photos and video.
At least for stills there's simply no way the iPhone is faster, burst mode apps or not. (I speak as a frequent user of both DSLRs and iphones.) The ability to zoom and crop means you can get shots with a DSLR than an iPhone could almost never get (barring ungainly tricks like shooting through binoculars) and you can't freeze action.
An iPhone is never faster than a pro DSLR. From hip to eye, power on and shooting in under a second. There's a reason the power switch is part of the shutter.
Nooope, it's not even close--the iPhone is slow, inflexible, and poor-performing compared to a pro DSLR hooked to a 24-70 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/2.8 zoom. Consumer DSLRs are kind of pokey, but the pro models go from "off" to "shoot" in a fraction of a second, with no perceptible delay between hitting the shutter button and an exposure. There is no faffing about with P mode or the like (only someone who doesn't know how to use his camera would be caught out doing this).
The iPhone does have an advantage in network connectivity, but it's comparatively unlikely to capture the couple of moments worth saving.
>the Sun-Times might be more effective firing the writers, keeping the photographers, and teaching them actual journalism.
I think you joke, but you might have accidentally made an excellent point.
My girlfriend, to pay her bills, is a journalist. One of the things that she's talked about a lot (I'm paraphrasing here, these aren't her words) is that contemporary journalists don't have any balls anymore.
The joke is: a journalism professor, on the first day, stages a siren to play outside of the classroom. When it goes off, anybody who doesn't immediately run out with a pen and a pad in hand is dropped from the class.
Lately, a journalist can do their job without getting up from their desk. A photojournalist, however, can't. They're the ones running into "the action" necessarily. A words-journalist isn't anymore, so much.
My thoughts exactly. For controlled situations where the photographer can dictate the subject's distance, pose, and lighting, I'm sure an iPhone would do just fine. But often, a photojournalist finds themselves in a situation where the environment is beyond their control: a concert with a laser light show, fast-moving athletes in action, or coverage of a natural disaster where your distance requires a telephoto shot.
Don't get me wrong - I use my iPhone's camera frequently and I think it's great. But as a photojournalist where your story (and your livelihood) depends on "getting the shot", you need to be knowledgeable and prepared to shoot in the worst conditions possible. The iPhone can do some awesome things, but you just can't fake good glass with software.
Full disclosure: I sell event photos to my local newspaper that I could not have gotten at all if I had used my smartphone.
They're just going to have really bad photos, with bad composition etc.
Will it hurt their sales at all? Maybe not, so maybe they don't care?
It will hurt their journalists self-respect, and, I'd suggest, in the long term, hurt the credibility and respectability of their newspaper. To have unprofessional looking photos.
I wonder how many HN readers actually pick up a physical copy of CST? almost none.
There will still be some pro freelancers. Sad for newspapers and for those who lost their job but I doubt this will have an effect on readership.
It's not quality of photo that will be lost, it will be the ability to focus on reporting. Even if taking a photo is easy as Instagram, you still have to take time to edit the photo and prep it for print/production.
More problematic is the awkwardness of trying to photograph and interview at the same time. "I'm so sorry for the lost off your children, Mrs. Smith. Now can you look at my iPhone?"
This is a superb point. When the photo is supposed to document the interview the photographer can't be the interviewer. It would be like a news reporter filming themselves.
To abandon skilled photographers with quality equipment because of a few great photos by unskilled people using poor equipment is to miss a salient point: We notice great photos taken with poor cameras by unskilled photographers because sheer volume will produce a few worth noting; what isn't noticed is the many great photos which don't exist because equipment and/or user was unable to make the picture happen.
As pointed out in another comment in here, how do they expect to actually get decent night photos then? At least with a camera, you can change the exposure and shutter speeds to help with night photos. That's not something really all that possible with an iPhone, if I'm correct. Also things in motion, the iPhone tends to be very easily blurred, again, something that wouldn't be a big issue with a nice (or even decent) DSLR.
This seems like a very dumb move on there part, but I also grew up doing/loving photojournalism, so maybe I'm taking it a bit personal. I just feel like it's going to make their photos look very amateur, which will inevitably hurt their credibility even more so.
What is wrong with the Sun-Times making this decision if it is shown that having a staff trained in 'iPhone photography basics' allows the ST to cut costs without hurting revenue? An iconic photo (e.g. Tank Man photo [1]) opportunity is a black swan event, after all.
You think you're using hyperbole but many articles going out nowadays never get read by an editor who actually edits for tone, readability, spelling, or even accuracy.
And the janitorial staff? You might be surprised to know how many of the actual journalistic sites you read don't even have offices, or at least not ones with desks for writers. Most of these people work at home.
Via eBay, I bought some 50's thru 70's era Chicago SunTimes vintage 8x10 file prints. Apparently, someone acquired their physical archives? The skill of photo journalists in those days was astounding. There were beautifully composed photos of the 1968 riots -- while people were rioting! I'm not suggesting that today's PJ's aren't as skilled, but it's certainly easier with a DSLR.
I very much agree. Photojournalism was it at peak in that era. There were tons of photoessay magazines around but they couldn't compete for ads with other forms of media and most of them shut down.
I saw a museum exhibition a few years back of a famous Japanese war photographer in Vietnam (who was killed there).
In addition to the usual blown up prints of his most famous images, they had contact sheets from his film rolls, and they really showed how incredibly skilled he was.
From looking at the contact sheets, and comparing with the blown-up images, you could see that 95% of his shots were perfectly composed, well exposed, in focus, and there were almost no wasted shots at all—none of this "take multiple exposures and choose the best one" business, he just got it right the first time and moved on.
While being shot at.
I liked his work before seeing that exhibition, but I was in awe after it...
[and of course while the equipment of the time (from the contact sheets, you could see it was 35mm film) wasn't all that bad, it was a bit primitive compared to what we have now....]
45 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 100 ms ] threadGiven the 'yes and' style of derivative news reporting commonplace today, the Sun-Times might be more effective firing the writers, keeping the photographers, and teaching them actual journalism.
Oh, and turn on HDR and wait 5s for it to process.
Shooting "real" photojournalism with an iPhone is more than doable. Hell, the iPhone's field of view is a 28mm equivalent, which is perfect for photojournalism.
I don't disagree with the overall point about the failure of photojournalism, but photojournalism has never been about the capabilities of the camera.
Fast frame rate. Very bright lens (e.g. f1.4). Large, high-sensitivity sensor.
It is very much about the capabilities of the camera, because the truth is that lesser cameras miss most shots, especially in a moving situation where you get a momentary window of opportunity. The iPhone camera may get there eventually, but in that situation right now the failure rate to get a shot is going to be incredibly high (obviously a chance is better than none -- the camera you have in your hand is better than the one at home and all -- but we're comparing to ready to go photojournalists).
We shall see how this decision plays out, but personally I think it is a horrible choice because it removes one of the few remaining differentiators between old media and the citizen news, which is that generally in the former you could find great, unique pictures by professionals who know what they're doing.
In a dynamic/dangerous situation, you need to get on the viewfinder and crank away on continuous-high shutter, and you'll take 200x the photos of even an ambitious iPhone user. Now think that out of 1,000 frames, maybe 2 will be head-and-shoulders above the rest... these are probably frames that the iPhone user had a vanishingly small opportunity to capture at all.
Don't conflate News Photography with Photojournalism. The second is a subset of the first. News Photography is a field that requires greater diversity than 'being there at f/8 (in daylight, with a fast lens and a ready camera)'.
There are sports photographers, portrait photographers, close subject photographers, artistic photographers and, yes, photographers who need to be on the scene at breaking events, where a wide shot and being close are key.
I agree with everything you said, but it doesn't negate anything I said.
Which combined with your comment leads me to wonder about their sports section. Taking sports photography is very definitely about the capabilities of the camera and even more importantly the lens. An iPhone is not going to do very well for sports photography.
Though it would be amusing to see the attempts... ><
[Seriously though, it sounds like they're simply going to use freelancers for photos from now on, many of whom will presumably have all the fancy kit you need for sports etc...]
EDIT: Okay, so an iPhone can never actually do f/8, but I think my point still stands...
The wifi/cell part of the photo is not to be ignored, GPS stamped images uploaded in seconds. The SLR can't compete yet. In a year or two when wifi is prevalent on SLR cameras, maybe, but for the moment is speed counts the iPhone will win for photos and video.
The iPhone does have an advantage in network connectivity, but it's comparatively unlikely to capture the couple of moments worth saving.
I think you joke, but you might have accidentally made an excellent point.
My girlfriend, to pay her bills, is a journalist. One of the things that she's talked about a lot (I'm paraphrasing here, these aren't her words) is that contemporary journalists don't have any balls anymore.
The joke is: a journalism professor, on the first day, stages a siren to play outside of the classroom. When it goes off, anybody who doesn't immediately run out with a pen and a pad in hand is dropped from the class.
Lately, a journalist can do their job without getting up from their desk. A photojournalist, however, can't. They're the ones running into "the action" necessarily. A words-journalist isn't anymore, so much.
I'm glad she can make that work!
Don't get me wrong - I use my iPhone's camera frequently and I think it's great. But as a photojournalist where your story (and your livelihood) depends on "getting the shot", you need to be knowledgeable and prepared to shoot in the worst conditions possible. The iPhone can do some awesome things, but you just can't fake good glass with software.
Full disclosure: I sell event photos to my local newspaper that I could not have gotten at all if I had used my smartphone.
Will it hurt their sales at all? Maybe not, so maybe they don't care?
It will hurt their journalists self-respect, and, I'd suggest, in the long term, hurt the credibility and respectability of their newspaper. To have unprofessional looking photos.
More problematic is the awkwardness of trying to photograph and interview at the same time. "I'm so sorry for the lost off your children, Mrs. Smith. Now can you look at my iPhone?"
That kind of breaks the rhythm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic
This seems like a very dumb move on there part, but I also grew up doing/loving photojournalism, so maybe I'm taking it a bit personal. I just feel like it's going to make their photos look very amateur, which will inevitably hurt their credibility even more so.
What is wrong with the Sun-Times making this decision if it is shown that having a staff trained in 'iPhone photography basics' allows the ST to cut costs without hurting revenue? An iconic photo (e.g. Tank Man photo [1]) opportunity is a black swan event, after all.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man
What about firing all the editors and teaching the writers to do that themselves?
Get rid of all the janitorial staff and mandate everyone spend more time cleaning up.
And the janitorial staff? You might be surprised to know how many of the actual journalistic sites you read don't even have offices, or at least not ones with desks for writers. Most of these people work at home.
The photo opportunity is, but the ability to exploit the opportunity and get a good photo is not.
Good to see you here again.
(Apologies for off-topic comment).
Or could it be crowdsourcing "Pick the 100 best amateur photos rather than 1 good pro?"
The Sun Times isn't the New York Times. It's the lowbrow of two daily newspapers in Chicago, and already leading the charge to the bottom.
In addition to the usual blown up prints of his most famous images, they had contact sheets from his film rolls, and they really showed how incredibly skilled he was.
From looking at the contact sheets, and comparing with the blown-up images, you could see that 95% of his shots were perfectly composed, well exposed, in focus, and there were almost no wasted shots at all—none of this "take multiple exposures and choose the best one" business, he just got it right the first time and moved on.
While being shot at.
I liked his work before seeing that exhibition, but I was in awe after it...
[and of course while the equipment of the time (from the contact sheets, you could see it was 35mm film) wasn't all that bad, it was a bit primitive compared to what we have now....]